Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker92
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The defendant in O. S. 12 of 1958 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cochin is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of damages for breach of contract in respect of goods purchased and not taken delivery of by the defendant.2. The plaintiff's firm is doing business in Mattancherry in coconut oil both as merchants and commission agents. The defendant is a trader at Coondapoor, South Canara District. He is doing business in coconut oil through commission agents in Mattancherry. The terms of the agreement on the strength of which the plaintiff was transacting business with his customers like the defendant are set out in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that all oil transactions entered into by commission agents at Mattancherry are governed by the trade usage known as Pakka Aadat system and the defendant was dealing with them under this system with the full knowledge of its incidents.3. In the course of such dealings the defendant placed three orders, one for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker39
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the respective writ petitioners dispute, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the principles laid down by the State Government regarding admissions to the Medical and Engineering Colleges in the State.2 The order, the validity of which is challenged in these proceedings, is Ext. R-1, dated 7th June 1963, in O. P. No. 1266/1963, which, it is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, governs the matter of admissions to these institutions. According to the petitioners, but for the reservations made in the impugned order, they would have been entitled to admission in respect of the colleges for which they had applied. According to them, as a result of the reservations made by the said order, students who have obtained lesser percentage of marks have been admitted; and the petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that they have got higher number of marks, have no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker25
M.S. Menon, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Vai-dialingam, 'J., in O. P. No. 981 of 1960. That petition which has been allowed was by the respondent before us, Messrs. Harrisons' and Crossfield Limited, Quilon. The appellant -- the 1st respondent in O. P. No. 981 of 1960 -- is the Commissioner of the Quilon Municipality.2. The controversy relates to the assessment of the respondent to profession tax for the two half years of the financial year 1958-59. The assessment was on the basis of the proviso to Rule 18 (2) - of the Taxation Rules in Schedule II to the Travancore District Municipalities Act, 1116 (M. E.}. The assessment order is Ext. B and the resolution of the Municipal Council dismissing the respondent's appeal and confirming the assessment is Ext. F dated the 15th March, 1960.3. Rule 18 (1) of the Taxation Rules reads as follows :'Where a company of person transacts business in any half-year exclusively in the area of a single municipality, the income of such com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1964Ker181
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In A. S. No. 544 of 1961, we have held that the court-fee payable on appeals from orders under the Companies Act was under Article VI, Sch. II of the T. C. Court-fees Act. 1125, corresponding to Article XI, Schedule II of the Indian Court-fees Act. Raman Nayar, J., in a note to the Registrar, pointed out that that ruling does not apply to appeals under the Banking Companies Act- Finding that on this appeal 'under Section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, Court-fee of Rs. 2/- only has been paid, as ii under Article VI aforesaid, the office has made this reference.2. Article VI, Schedule II of the T. C. Court-fees Act, 1125, reads thus:VI. Memorandum of appeal, when the appeal is notfrom a decree or an order having the force of a decree and is presented. (a) to any Civil Court other than the High Court,or to any Revenue Court or Executive Officer subordinate to the Govern-ment :One rupee. (b) to the High Court or the Government : Two rupeesObviously, this Artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker135
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The petitioners, in these writ petitions, who are engaged in the manufacture and sale of all kinds of spirituous preparations besides Allopathic tinctures, challenge the right, of the State Government to collect fees for assaying the companies' products and the costs of the Excise establishment deputed to supervise the operations of the companies concerned.2. Mr. K.K. Menon, learned counsel appearing for all these petitions, as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, the respondent in all these matters, have agreed to treat the pleadings in O. P. No. 1674 of 1962 as representing the stand taken by the various petitioners regarding their grounds of attack, against the levy in question, as well as the stand taken by the State Government, to justify the said levies. Therefore, I will refer to the averments in the pleadings in the said writ petition as well as the exhibits filed by the petitioner and the State Government in that matter.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker8
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition, Mr. K. Raghavan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents, not to interfere with the petitioner's trade in the retail sale of intoxicating liquor for want of a licence issued by the first respondent. The Excise Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam, and the State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Trivandrum, are respondents 1 to 3 respectively in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Hotel Airlines, Ernakulam. According to him, he has been conducting a bar for the retail sale of foreign and Indian made liquor from 1-4-1962, on the basis of a licence granted by the Excise Commissioner, Ext. P-1, under Section 15 of the Cochin Abkari Act, Act I of 1077 -- hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner further states that on 30-3-1963, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1966Ker6
ORDERP. Govindan Nair, J.1. The short question arising for decision in this Original Petition is whether the provisions of Section 35B(1)(b) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Section 35B(1) of the Act is in these terms:'35B. (1) In the case of a banking company-- (a) no amendment of any provision relating to the appointment or re-appointment or remuneration of a managing director or any other director, whole-time or otherwise or of a manager or a chief executive officer by whatever name called, whether that provision be contained in the company's memorandum or articles of association, or in an agreement entered into by it, or in any resolution passed by the company in general meeting or by its Board of Directors shall have effect unless approved by the Reserve Bank:(b) no appointment or re-appointment of a managing or whole time director, manager or chief executive officer by whatever name call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker66; [1964]54ITR332(Ker)
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under, Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam.2. The Assessee is the Travancore Rayons Limited, Rayonpuram. The year of assessment is-1959-60 and the valuation date for the assessment which has been made under Section 16(3) of the Act is the 31st December, 1958.3. The assessment provided by the Act is on the net wealth of the assessee as on the valuation date. The expression 'net wealth' is defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the Act. The definition is 'net wealth' means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the valuation date' including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker71; [1964]15STC615(Ker)
1. This petition by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Quilon, is directed against the decision of the Sales lax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, in Tribunal Appeal No. 428 of 1962. That decision is tothe effect that the respondent, the Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Limited, Alleppey, is not a dealer as defined in Section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, In respect of its sales of rubber and that those sales arenot as a result liable to taxation under the said enactment.2. The definition of the expression 'dealer' as given in Section 2(b) of the Act reads as follows :' 'dealer' means any person who carries on the business of buying or selling goods and includes a Government which carries on such business',It is common ground that all that the company does is to convert the latex tapped from its rubber trees into sheets and effect a sale of those sheets to its customers. The sole question for determination is whether in these circumstances the company can be co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker1
M.S. Menon, C.J. 1. The appellant in this second appeal was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 890 of 1942 of the Court of the Munsiff of Badagara. In that suit he sought and obtained the recovery of possession of an item of property under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929.2. The suit was decreed on 13-9-1943 and possession was taken from the respondents on 23-10-1943. After the passing of the Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1956, the respondents Applied for a restoration of possession by an application under Section 5(2) of that enactment: I. A. No. 101 of 1957 in O. S. No. 890 of 1942.3. The application was allowed and the appellant before us filed A. S. No. 352 of 1959 of theCourt of the Subordinate Judge of Badagara. Thatappeal did not succeed. It was dismissed on theground that no appeal was available from a decision in an application under Section 5(2) of theMalabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1556. Thissecond appeal challenges the correctness of thatdecision.4. The sole question for determina...
Tag this Judgment!